Search This Blog

Posts

Is
naturalism on the wane in philosophy? Even more so than with other -isms in our
field, the precise meaning of “naturalism” is widely disputed. By and large, it
stands for two substantially different positions, each of which, naturally, lends
itself to further conceptual hair-splitting [1, 2]. Perhaps the best way to understand the broad difference
is to compare their respective counterparts. What does it mean to oppose naturalism? To be an
anti-naturalist in the first sense is to posit the existence of supernatural
beings or entities beyond the natural realm: gods, demons, ghosts, spiritual
realms, the afterlife. Naturalism, then, is simply the thesis that none of
these things exist. The natural universe, consisting of matter and energy or
whatever the latest entities postulated by modern physics (snares, waves,
fields…), is all there is. Let’s call this worldview
naturalism. The second
brand of anti-naturalism, by contrast, is a normative thesis about the proper
role of philosophy,…

(BBS Commentary on Manvir Singh's target paper "The cultural evolution of shamanism") Abstract:Cultural
evolution explains not just when
people tend to develop superstitions, but also what forms these beliefs take.
Beliefs that are more resilient in the face of apparent refutations and more
susceptible to occasional confirmation stand a greater chance of cultural
success. This argument helps to dispel the impression that shamans are mere
charlatans and believers are “faking it.” Among many other
insights into shamanism and supernatural belief, Singh has offered a useful
decision tree for sorting different types of events and deciding when people
are likely to develop superstitions. Superstition-prone events are those that
are “uncontrollable, fitness relevant, and random.” I want to extend Singh’s
cultural evolutionary analysis to the nature of the superstitious beliefs
themselves. It is one thing to explain when
people tend to develop superstitions, and another to explain…